Back
2009(1) CPR 514
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
D. Appa Rao, President and M. Shreesha, Member
V.R. Raju Appellant
versus
Narne Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
and Another —Respondents
F.A. No.284 of 2005
Decided on 28.5.2008
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. V. Gourishankar Rao, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. V. Henry, Advocate.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 12 and 17—Deficiency in service—Complainant-appellant purchased a plot in a scheme from respondent and paid its entire sale consideration Rs. 1, 25,000 and Rs. 22,500 towards registration charges in 2001—Respondent OP demanded Rs. 57,500 in October 2002 for obtaining clearance from Urban land Ceiling Department as the plot was in excess land of the person from whom OP had bought the land—Alleging demand as illegal complainant filed consumer complaint—District Forum held complainant not entitled to registration of plot and directed OP to refund the amount with interest at 12%—Appeal by complainant—Unilateral demand asking complainant to pay Rs. 57,500 towards clearance from ULC could not be upheld—Complainant could not be faulted for not depositing said amount—Without making any such payment for regularization, respondent could not ask complaint to pay pro-rata amount—Respondent to pay the amount to Government within a month and obtain orders of regularisation and complainant then to pay said amount within a month —Pursuant to District Forum’s order amount was refunded to complainant in 2005—Complainant to pay that amount within a month with interest at 6%—Complainant appellant was not rebarred in prosecuting remedy merely that he had accepted the amount but endorsed as ‘under protest”. (Paras 8 to 14)
Result: Appeal allowed.
D. Appa Rao, President—The unsuccessful complainant preferred this appeal against the order of District Forum-I, Hyderabad.
The case of the complainant in short is that he purchased plot No.29 in an extent of 300 sq. yards in phase-1 at Central Park of Kondapur village, Serlingampally Mandal in Ranga Reddy District on 15.3.2000 at an agreed rate of Rs. 500 per sq. yard from the respondent. He paid the entire sale consideration besides Rs.22,500 towards registration charges. While so on 14.10.2002 the respondent demanded him to pay Rs.57,500 for obtaining clearance from Urban Land Ceiling Department, which according to him (the complainant) was illegal and beyond the terms of allotment letter. Since he was not given physical possession, he was not liable to pay the same. While alleging deficiency in service, on the part of the respondent, he filed a complaint to direct the opposite party to register the plot besides compensation and costs.
2. The opposite party resisted the complaint. However it admitted that it had sold the said plot to him for Rs.1,25,000 out of total cost of Rs.1,50,000. It gave concession of Rs. 25,000 to him, since he was its employee. It has also admitted the deposit of Rs. 25,000 towards registration charges. It alleged that it has purchased the land from original owner under on agreement of sale. After obtaining provisional sanction of the layout from HUDA, it has developed the land into residential plots and allotted one plot to the complainant. Later, some land in which, the complainant’s plot is also situated was declared as excess land by the ULC authorities against the original owner. It was a subsequent development. It was not in its knowledge. It could not convey right, title and interest in the plot to the complainant. It has sought regularization of excess land by virtue of G.O. Ms. No.455 Rev. (U.C.I.) Department dated 29.7.2002 and directed the complainant to pay Rs. 57,000 to meet the expenses for regularization. This amount is not the actual cost of the developed plot as on today. Similar allottees have availed the benefit of the said G.O. Since it was not a their fault and the offer made by it was not accepted by him, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The complainant filed affidavit evidence besides Exs. A1 to A8 while the opposite parties filed Exs. B1 to B7 the correspondence made between them.
4. The District Forum after considering the material on record opined that the complainant was not entitled for registration of the plot. However, he was entitled for refund of Rs. 1,25,000 + Rs. 22,500 towards registration charges with interest @ 12% p.a., from 1.2.2001 till the date of complaint, and thereafter @ 9% p.a., together with costs.
5. Aggrieved by the said decision the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not consider the facts in a correct perspective. It ought to have directed the respondent to register the plot in view of the fact that he has paid the entire sale consideration amount together with registration charges. The demand of Rs.57,000 towards regularization charges is illegal. It constitutes deficiency in service. Since the respondent had purchased the land from the original owner and is in possession of land it has to pay for regularization of land, and bound to obtain-clearance from the ULC to get the land registered in his favour. If, for any reason, the District Forum intended to direct the respondent to return the said consideration, it ought to have directed the respondent to pay the present market value. He prayed that the appeal be allowed.
6. The point that arises for consideration whether the complainant is entitled for registration of plot in his favour or in the alternative damages together with the consideration paid by him?
7. It is an undisputed fact that the complainant, who was an employee of respondent company, had purchased plot No. 29 admeasuring 300 sq. yards in Phase-1 at Central Park of Kondapur villag
